c 

.V. «»• » .■ *~ 



\ <• 



K 




Glass SH3M 
Rnnk >D6 LLCs 



i 

■tiele dogfish ibill 

I HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

I COMMITTEE ON THE 

I MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 






HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 



ON 

iiii:::!:! 



H. R. 11254 



A BILL TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS 

FOR AMELIORATING THE DAMAGE WROUGHT TO 

THE FISHERIES BY PREDACEOUS FISHES 

AND AQUATIC ANIMALS 



FEBRUARY 21, 1916 



m 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



.JJgIL& 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND ITISHERIES. 

House of Representatives. 

JOSHUA W, ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 



RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES F. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES P. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York 



J. C. Bat, Clerk. 



D. Of D. 

SEP 9 1916 






v 



DOGFISH BILL. 



Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, Monday, February 21, 1916. 

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua W. Alexan- 
der (chairman) presiding. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be reported as present 
and to have the stenographer take down a statement from me ; then 
to be excused. I would like to say that this bill, I believe, ought to 
be reported, and I think that this committee ought to report a num- 
ber of reasonable and needed fishery bills, as we have done heretofore. 
I think this is one of the useful bills introduced, and I think also 
that some bills looking to the purpose of taking care of the oyster 
industry at Galveston and some other bills of like kind ought to be 
introduced and insisted on. 

The Chairman. To accommodate our colleague, Mr. Hinds, of 
Maine, we set down H. R. 11254 for hearing this morning, as the 
gentlemen are here who represent the commission appointed by the 
Legislature of Maine. It was to accommodate one of the members of 
that commission who did not care to remain in the city indefinitely 
that the hearing was set for this morning. That gentleman is pres- 
ent; also the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries. 
The Secretary of Commerce was invited to be present, but was un- 
avoidably detained, but I think later on he will communicate with 
the committee by personal letter, giving his views on the bill. I 
believe he did appear before the Senate Committee on Fisheries last 
Saturday. 

The Solicitor for the Department of Commerce is here and wishes 
to make some suggestions with reference to the form of the bill, 
which I will have inserted in the record at this point. 

A BILL To conduct investigations and experiments ameliorating the damage wrought 
to the fisheries by predaceous fishes and aquatic animals. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commissioner of Fisheries 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to conduct investigations and 
experiments for the purpose of ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries 
by dogfish and other predaceous fishes and aquatic animals. 

Sec. 2. That the said investigations and experiments shall be such as to 
develop tlie best and cheapest means of taking such fishes and aquatic animals, 
of utilizing them for economic purposes, especially for food, and to establish 
fisheries and markets for them ; and for these purposes the Commissioner of 
Fisheries is authorized to employ such persons as may be necesary, and to catch, 
buy, or otherwise obtain, and to sell at cost or less or distribute gratuitously 
such quantities of the said aquatic products as may be necessary for tests or 
demonstrations of their qualities or the establishment of a demand among pro- 
spective consumers : Provided, That the proceeds of any such sales shall be 
accounted for and covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

3 



4 DOGFISH BILL. 

Sec. 3. That the Commissioner of Fisheries, through the Secretary of Com- 
merce, shall submit in his annual estimates of appropriations for the Bureau of 
Fisheries an estimate of the stun of money necessary to give effect to this act ;' 
Provided, That the said sum shall not exceed $25,000 in any fiscal year. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT LEE THURMAN, SOLICITOR OF THE 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Mr. Thurman. Secretary Redfield has asked 'me to convey to the 
committee his regrets for his inability to be present this morning 
on account of a very sudden and important matter requiring his 
immediate attention. Otherwise he would have been here. 

Both Dr. Smith and Dr. Moore, the Commissioner and Assistant 
Commissioner of Fisheries, are here and will give you the facts as 
to the merits of the bill in reply to any questions that may be asked. 
As a matter of fact I assume thejr will be perfectly neutral and 
treat you gentlemen as they treated the members of the committee 
of the Senate last Saturday, and give you a taste of canned dogfish, 
should any of you care to try it. 

There is, gentlemen, one matter to which I desire to call your 
attention, and that is in the shape of an amendment to the proposed 
bill. At the hearing of the Senate Committee on Fisheries last 
Saturday Senator Jones, of Washington, while, I think I can safely 
say, favoring the purposes of the bill, did object to the phraseology 
of the latter part of section 2, beginning in the middle of line 12. 
After some discussion Senator Johnson, of Maine, suggested that 
the following change be made in line 11 : After the word " and," 
that the word " to " be stricken out and the word " of " inserted, and 
the word " establishing " substituted instead of the word " estab- 
lish," so as to make it read : 

* * * economic purposes, especially for food and of establishing fisheries 
and markets for them. 

He also suggested making that the end of section 2 and striking" 
out all of the balance. And I wish to say to the members of this 
committee that that amendment would be perfectly satisfactory to 
the department. We believe that that will give us all of the neces- 
sary authority that is set out in detail in the balance of section 2. 
I believe that the bill, as amended, is going to be reported favorably 
by the Committee on Fisheries of the Senate; and we have no ob- 
jection whatever to that amendment if this committee sees fit to 
adopt it. 

The Chairman. It would read then, " and of establishing fisheries 
and markets for them." 

Mr. Thurman. Yes, sir. It would read, " especially for food and 
of establishing fisheries and markets for them." 

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF FISH- 
ERIES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Dr. Smith. I have no special argument to make on this bill, Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, and will simply say that 
the department realizes the great damage done to the fishing indus- 
try of our entire Atlantic coast, and, to some extent, the fishing in- 
dustry of the Pacific coast, by these small sharks; and that we have 



DOGFISH BILL. 5 

been desirous for a number of years of doing something that would 
ameliorate the great losses which the fishermen have sustained. And 
we feel that this is a proper matter for congressional attention. 

The general purpose of the bill which is before you is highly com- 
mendable, and we think that with the authority and the appropria- 
tion carried by this bill we may be able to do something that will 
alleviate the situation. 

The Chairman. The suggestion was made in the last Congress, 
and I think at that time a bill was introduced providing that fac- 
tories should be established under Government control and these fish 
converted into fertilizer. 

Dr. Smith. That feature of the proposed legislation has been elimi- 
nated from this bill, as you see. We were under the impression that 
such treatment of the case would not meet the situation. In the first 
place, we were not assured that Congress would want to go into the 
business of establishing fertilizer factories along the coast and operat- 
ing them at Government expense ; and, in the second place, there was 
no assurance that we could produce any material diminution of the 
abundance of the dogfish by any such means. The history of similar 
fishes in all parts of the world is that man can have practically no 
influence on their general abundance; and for that reason we are 
glad that feature was not included in the bill that is now before you. 

The Chairman. It was further the view of the committee and of 
the department that it would not be commercially feasible to convert 
these fish into fertilizer, was it not ? 

Dr. Smith. It could be done, of course. 

The Chairman. But it would cost too much money ? 

Dr. Smith. They have a fertilizer value; but it has been amply 
demonstrated in Canada, where Government fertilizer plants have 
been established, that the manufacture of fertilizer from dogfish 
under existing circumstances would have to be carried on at a certain 
loss. 

The Chairman. Your conclusion is that the best way to dispose of 
them is to eat them ? 

Dr. Smith. We realize that these are fishes causing great damage, 
and it is our view that the best way to handle them is to convert them 
into an economic resource, rather than to continue to regard them as 
a pure and unadulterated nuisance. 

Mr. Rodenberg. What is the department doing now in the way of 
exterminating this dogfish ? 

Dr. Smith. We are doing nothing whatever with the dogfish. We 
have had some experience in investigating the food value of other 
neglected fishes ; and we expect to adopt the same general methods for 
the dogfish that have been successful with other recent cases, of which 
the committee may like to hear. 

Mr. Eodenberg. Yes ; I would really like to hear that. 

The Chairman. First, Ave would like to know what kind of fish 
these are and why they are not wholesome and eatable? 

Dr. Smith. The dogfish has an unfortunate name, and that, as 
much as anything else, has prevented its utilization in our country 
up to this time. The dogfish is eaten in other countries. It is eaten 
all over western Europe, and efforts have been made to introduce 
it to the American public, but without much success. 



6 DOGFISH BILL. 

Mr. Lazaro. Why is it called " dogfish " ? 

Dr. Smith. It goes in enormous droves or packs, like wild dogs, 
and makes ravages on the coast, coming and going very suddenly. 

Mr. Rodenberg. It has a sort of a bark, too ; a peculiar noise ? 

Dr. Smith. It is a fact that it has a bark. I myself have heard it. 

Mr. Rodenberg. I have heard it many a time. 

Mr. Hadley. It has another name, has it not ? 

Dr. Smith. The only common name in this country is " dogfish." 
They have other names in other countries. 

Mr. Lazaro. You say it is used in other countries ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; it is quite extensively eaten in England. 

Mr. Lazaro. What is it called there ? 

Dr. Smith. "Houndfish," I think, and also "dogfish." 

Dr. Moore. It is called " plaice " also, I think. 

Dr. Smith. That name, however, can not be adopted in this coun- 
try, because that would be tabooed by the pure-food board. 

Mr. Van Dyke. Is the dogfish you have on the coast the same that 
we have in the small lakes in the interior? 

Dr. Smith. It is peculiar to the sea. It is a small shark, averaging 

7 or 8 pounds and weighing up to 15 pounds. 

Mr. Van Dfke. We have a small fish called the dogfish in the 
small lakes in the interior which run from 2 pounds up to 7, 8, 9, 
or 10 pounds. 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Van Dyke. But this is a different fish entirely ? 

Dr. Smith. Absolutely. 

Mr. Curry. I would suggest that you might get the assistance of 
the pure-food board in this matter. This is not a dog, and you 
might have them taboo the name of " dogfish." That is a wonderful 
board, that pure-food board. 

Dr. Moore. They might require us to call it " a fish in the dog 
style," or something of that kind, which would not help us so much. 

Dr. Smith. We may be able to suggest a name which will not be 
objectionable or distasteful to the consuming public and which will 
still be in conformity to the law. 

Mr. Gurry. I think you will have more trouble in getting a name 
that will not be distasteful to the pure-food bureau. 

Mr. Hadley. Is this dogfish that you have on the Atlantic coast 
similar to the dogfish that we have on the Pacific coast around Puget 
Sound ? 

Dr. Smith. There is a similar fish on the Pacific coast. It has the 
same habits and does the same damage as on the Atlantic coast, but 
it is not the same species. 

Mr. Hadley. I want to know if there is any material difference in 
the fish? 

Dr. Smith. No. In 1913 there were five and a half million pounds 
of this fish sold by the British fishermen for food. In the following 
year, 1914 (which is the latest year for which we have any figures) y 
there were seven and a half million pounds sold for food. 

The Chairman. What other fish are tabooed like dogfish as a food 
fish? 

Dr. Smith. The most advertised fish, not excluding dogfish, in 
recent months has been the tilefish, which we took up because we were 



DOGFISH BILL. 7 

satisfied of its food value, and we have converted it into a marketable 
product of great value. This fish has a very interesting history, 
which is set forth in a little document issued by us recently. 

The Chairman. That is not very long and it might be incorporated 
in the record, might it not? If there is no objection, it will be in- 
serted in the record as a part of the hearings. 

(The pamphlet refered to is as follows:) 

[Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries. Economic Circular No. 10. Issued 

Sept. 30, 1915.] 

THE TILEFISH A NEW DEEP-SEA FOOD FISH. 

Of the tragedies which occur in the sea and the great disasters which befall 
the lowly dwellers therein we know but little, and the brief but tragic history 
of the tilefish therefore has peculiar interest. The discovery, the almost com- 
plete extermination, and the rapid reestablishment of this large, handsome, and 
potentially valuable species, all within the space of less than 15 years, is one 
of the remarkable stories of marine biology. 

So far as is known, man had never seen this fish until May, 1879, when Capt. 
Kirby, of the fishing schooner William V. Hutchins, while fishing near the 
hundred-fathom curve, south of Nantucket, caught several thousand pounds of a 
" strange and handsomely colored fish." He sent a specimen to the United 
States Fish Commission, where it was found to be new and was described and 
named Lopholatilus chamoeleontioeps. This name, which means the crested tilus 
with a head like a chamelon, may be used, after a little practice, with more or 
less facility by men of science, but for everyday use something shorter was 
needed, so the describer exercised the Adamite privilege of a discoverer and, 
perpetrating a pun on the fourth syllable of the first name, called it " tile " fish. 
The fact that the fish was new was interesting, but what excited most attention 
was that it existed in enormous numbers within a short distance of the coast 
and that its edible qualities were of a high order. 

Prof. Baird, the Commissioner of Fisheries, at once appreciated the economic 
opportunity afforded by the discovery and began investigations to determine the 
location of the fishing grounds and the feasibility of establishing a fishery, but 
before much could be done the tilefish was apparently practically exterminated 
by a mysterious disturbance along the edge of the coastal slope. The first news 
of this disaster came in March, 1882, when the master of a vessel reported that 
he had sailed for 69 miles through a mass of dead and dying fish floating at the 
surface. His first statement was that they covered a distance of 15 miles, ex- 
plaining later that he feared to put his reputation for veracity in jeopardy if 
he stated the whole truth. Other vessels in March and April of the same year 
reported similar experiences, and from the various accounts it was estimated 
that the dead fish covered an area 170 miles long and 25 miles wide and that 
upward of 1,400,000,000 tilefish had perished. What killed them is not certain, 
but investigations of the water temperatures at the bottom, made by the bureau 
both before and since the occurrence, indicate that it may have been due to a 
sudden chilling of the water. The tilefish, like the cod, is a bottom dweller; 
but, unlike the cod, it is of a family accustomed to the warmer waters of the 
Tropics. It finds a congenial temperature where the edge of the Gulf Stream 
touches the sea bottom, on a slope as steep as a mountain side, and there is, 
therefore, but a narrow strip on which the water is neither too shallow nor too 
deep. The Gulf Stream is a great warm oceanic river flowing between banks 
of cold water, not fixed like the solid banks of land streams, but pushed one 
way or the other as the path of the stream approaches or recedes from the coast. 
There is evidence that about the time of the decimation of the tilefish the Gulf 
Stream was receding, and as it moved offshore its warmth no longer reached 
the bottom, and the fish and other animals dwelling there were left in the chilly 
waters which took its place. 

It is reasonable to suppose that being habituated to a warm and equable sub- 
marine climate they were killed by the cold wave which enveloped them. A few 
years afterwards, while the Gulf Stream was still " off soundings," investiga- 
tions showed that it was again gradually approaching the coast, and it was 
predicted that in 1892 it would be flowing over a depth in which its deep 
stratum would again bathe the bottom of the New England coast, on which the 
tileiish formerly had abounded. The prediction came true, and the Fisheries 



8 DOGFISH BILL. 

schooner Grampus, in the summer of that year, caught a few fish on the old 
grounds, although persistent search in the preceding 10 years had failed to 
reveal a single specimen. Evidently the return of congenial conditions caused 
the fish to immigrate from areas in which the mortality had not been so com- 
plete, probably farther south along the coast. 

Whether the straying of the Gulf Stream was or was not responsible for the 
mortality suffered 10 years before, the return of the current to its old course 
was coincident with the recurrence of the tilefish, which has yearly increased 
in numbers in its old haunts until now it is apparently as numerous as ever. 
The Bureau of Fisheries believes it to be capable of supporting a great fishery 
and adding a desirable fish to the market. It is a large, beautifully colored 
fish of excellent food qualities ; and as it is easily caught and is found in 
great abundance, probably at all seasons of the year, within 100 miles of the 
coast, it can be placed on the markets of the New England and North Atlantic 
States in excellent condition. 

Two things appear essential to give it the place which its economic and 
edible qualities entitle it — the acquaintance of the fishermen with its abundance, 
ease of capture, and the accessibility of its habitat, and the appreciation by the 
public of its excellence as food. 

To the fishermen the bureau is demonstrating, by actual trial, the economic 
possibilities of the fishery and the results will be made public through the 
press. It is also furnishing in this circular a sketch map showing the location 
of the grounds on which the fish are known to exist in commercial quantities. 

Though the qualities of Ihe tilefish and the accessibility of the grounds make 
it especially adapted to the fresh-fish trade, it is also excellent lightly salted 
and smoked like finnan haddie, and a temporary glut in the market may be re- 
lieved by preparing the surplus in that way. As a by-product the sounds are 
valuable, for they are of large size, and analysis has shown them to be equal to 
(hose of the hake for the production of gelatin or isinglass. 

To the consumer the bureau is bringing the fish at a reasonable price through 
the regular market channels, with the recommendation that it be given a trial, 

Mr. Van Dyke. I would like to ask one more question. Is it 
your opinion that this bill will not have anything to do with any 
fresh-water fish at all? Is this a matter of the salt-water fish en- 
tirely? 

Dr. Smith. It is not intended to be limited to salt-water fish, but 
the greatest need for an investigation of this kind now is in the 
coastal districts. 

Mr. Van Dyke. If it is not restricted to salt-water fish, just 
what sort of fish in fresh- water lakes will come under this bill? 

Dr. Smith. The dogfish, of which you spoke a moment ago. 

Mr. Van Dyke. And the red-horse suckers? 

Dr. Smith. That dogfish is predaceous and does damage, but it is 
now being utilized for food all over the Great Lakes, and several 
millions of pounds are offered for sale every year. 

Mr. Van Dyke. In the State I come from, we have Rainy Lake 
and Lake of the Woods, and, in fact, most of the international 
border between Minnesota and Canada is water; and we have a great 
number of dogfish, red-horse suckers, and carp in those lakes. Now, 
is it your idea that that class of fish would come under this bill ? 

Dr. Smith. All the fish you mention are now being consumed 
rather extensively. 

Mr. Van Dyke. I know they are up there. There is a ready mar- 
ket for them, and they sell readily for 5 and 10 cents a pound. 

Dr. Smith. None of those fish would receive any attention from 
our hands, because the public knows about their food value. 

Mr. Curry. You would not have any idea of changing the name 
of " catfish," would you? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir; that name is generally used and is not par- 
ticularly obnoxious. 



DOGFISH BILL. 9 

I will say just a word about this tilefish. It was discovered in 
1879 and was supposed to have been exterminated by natural 
causes in 1882. In that year vessels coming in from the other side 
of the Atlantic and engaged in the coastwise trade went through 
hundreds of square miles of dead tilefish, floating at the surface. 
This fish was discovered and described by us, and it was the idea of 
the first Commissioner of Fisheries, Prof. Baird, that it would be- 
come a very valuable food fish inasmuch as the grounds en which it 
was found were very conveniently located on the seaboard, con- 
venient, for instance, to the Boston, New York, and Philadelphia 
markets. As a matter of fact, however, before this catastrophe 
occurred there were no tilefish used, and for many years after the 
catastrophe there were no tilefish to be found. But we made investi- 
gations and sent vessels to the grounds formerly resorted to by the 
tilefish, and finally found them in small numbers. These numbers 
have increased from year to year until now the fish has reestablished 
itself over the comparatively large area in which it was originally 

found. . i xi. 

We undertook to create a demand for this fish and to supply the 
demand at the same time, and we engaged in what we conceived to be a 
legitimate and rather attractive advertising campaign through the 
press and by means of circulars and placards such as this [exhibiting] ; 
and we chartered a vessel and guaranteed the captain and owners a cer- 
tain amount for one month's work. This vessel went into the fishery 
and found the fish in abundance, and at the end of the month we 
abandoned the experiment. From six to nine vessels have now gone 
into the fishery, and they are landing their catch in New York. Up- 
wards of a million and a quarter pounds have been caught and sold 
since we gave up the work in the late fall. About 20,000 pounds a 
day are now being sold in the New York market, and the fishery 
may be regarded as established. This was a fish for which there was 
no demand up to last October. . 

Mr. Lazaro. In what year was that that you made this investiga- 
tion ? 

Dr. Smith. The investigation to establish a fishery i 

Mr. Lazaro. No; that you discovered this fish and introduced it? 

Dr. Smith. In October. 1915. . 

Mr. Rodenberg. That is very interesting. When I was m JNew 
York some time ago a gentleman took me to dinner and recommended 
the tilefish, and I thought it a most delicious fish. I thought it was 
something very rare. 

The Chairman. How far along the Atlantic coast are these dog- 
fish abundant? - r 

Dr. Smith. The dogfish are abundant on practically the whole 
Atlantic coast ; but farther south the fish are in deeper water. It is 
chiefly in the New England States that the fish comes close inshore 
and does the greatest damage to the fishing operations. Farther 
south it has the same predatory instincts, preying on the fishes of 
greater commercial value, but not coming in actual contact with fish- 
ing to such an extent. 

Mr. Byrnes. It is not found down on the South Carolina coast, 

then? 

Dr. Smith. Pretty far offshore, at Cape Hatteras. 

Mr. Byrnes. How do you propose to create a market for them ? 



10 DOGFISH BILL. 

Dr. Smith. That will be a very difficult thing, and we do not know 
just what method of procedure we ought to adopt. We are approach- 
ing the subject with open minds. 

Mr. Byrnes. You have no plan in mind ? 

Dr. Smith. A general plan to prepare the fish in every possible way 
and to go into the country with these products and try to create a 
demand. 

Mr. Lazaro. Have you not that authority already? 

Dr. Smith. We are not sure we have the authority ; and the work 
that we have been doing recently has caused us some little concern be- 
cause we were fearful we might be exceeding our authority. 

Mr. Byrnes. You mean this tilefish work that you refer to ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. I suppose if you do have the authority you do not 
have the funds, anyway ? 

Dr. Smith. That is true ; and the funds are quite as important as 
the authority. 

Mr. Hadley. As I understand, the bill is not designed to establish 
the fish on the market, but only to make investigations with a view 
of establishing them? 

Dr. Smith. The purpose of this bill is to show how this fish can 
be utilized. No State and no private individual can go into this 
matter. It is for the Federal Government to assume the expense of 
the investigations that will be necessary. 

Dr. Moore. Mr. Commissioner, excuse me a moment, but I think 
that possibly either you or I misunderstood the question. I think the 
question was whether it is our purpose to establish the market. 

Mr. Hadley. Yes ; and I ask this question by reason of the amend- 
ment proposed by the Senate committee. As I understand Mr. 
Thurman's statement of that amendment, and from a brief analysis 
of the bill, it would seem the amendment goes to the form and not 
to the substance of the bill. In other words, that it proposes a prose- 
cution of means to the end of an ascertainment of what can be done, 
but not to the doing of the thing itself until further authorization. 

Dr. Moore. I think it is our purpose and our desire, and it seems 
to me to be a very essential feature of the work, that we should es- 
tablish a market. That is a very essential matter, to establish a 
market and to induce people to eat the fish and thereby to induce the 
fishermen to catch them. 

Mr. Hadley. I was just asking for information, because the amend- 
ment I do not think materially changes the substance, and yet it is a 
change of form. 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Hadley. But I do not think the substance of this bill, as I read 
it, really goes to the point of authorizing the establishment of fisheries 
and markets. As I read it it would be " to develop the best and cheap- 
est means of taking such fishes and of utilizing them for economic 
purposes and establishing them." 

Dr. Smith. It does not mean establishing market houses, but the 
creation of a market demand. 

Dr. Moore. The actual establishing of a market is the important 
thing we wish to do. That is the crux of the whole matter. 

Mr. Byrnes. As I understand, your question is directed to the es- 
tablishment of a fishery? 



DOGFISH BILL. 11 

Mr. Hadley. Yes ; whether it was intended that subsequent to this 
legislation there should be further authorization going to the estab- 
lishment, or whether it was intended that the commissioner should 
have authority, if this bill passed, to establish the fish in the markets 
under this bill. 

There is a material distinction, if that is the intention, between 
that and the amendment proposed in the Senate. 

Dr. Moore. It is certainly our desire to have authority to actually 
establish a market, and to go at it in the most practicable way that we 
can devise; to actually get the fish into the hands of the consumer. 
The success of the entire project hinges upon our ability to do that. 

Dr. Smith. If agreeable to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to have you ask Dr. Moore to tell you something about the 
economic possibilities of the dogfish, which is something to which he 
has given attention. And he has some samples here which I think 
some of you might wish to try. 

The Chairman. Very well, Dr. Moore. 

STATEMENT OF DR. H. F. MOORE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 
COMMERCE. 

Dr. Moore. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will be very brief 
in what I have to say on this subject. The matter is treated to some 
extent in the report which the department made on this bill and in 
the memorandum submitted with it. 

The economic possibilities of the dogfish are quite various, and 
there have been various projects for dealing with this matter. Some 
of them have proposed that the fish should be utilized for fertilizer, 
which is a perfectly good use for the fish, but, as the commissioner 
has already said, the difficulty is that you have to compete in the 
market with a fish which can be handled very much more economi- 
cally — that is the menhaden. The cost of producing fertilizer from 
the menhaden, to a considerable extent, fixes the price which can 
be obtained for fish scrap in the market, which normally is about $30 
a ton, although it is a little higher now' on account of peculiar con- 
ditions. The price of the oil, which is extracted more or less inci- 
dentally in the production of fertilizer, is about 30 cents per gallon. 

Menhaden, in 1908, sold for an average of about $4 per ton. As 
a matter of fact the menhaden is sold by count, but I have reduced 
the cost to the ton unit in order to be able to compare it with the 
dogfish which, cf course, is quite a different size. The fertilizer 
factories, which are established in Canada and are operated by the 
Canadian Government, give practically the same price per ton for 
dogfish that is obtained by the fishermen for menhaden on our coast 
The result of the operations in Canada has shown that the dogfish 
is very much more expensive to handle. There are certain peciliari- 
ties in its flesh and certain peculiarities in regard to other of its 
structures, which make it more expensive to handle in the production 
of fertilizer than is the menhaden. For instance, it can not be sub- 
jected to what is known as the continuous cooking and pressing 
process on account of the rather spongy character of the flesh when 
steamed; and the oil has to be expressed in a more expensive way. 
Moreover there is a large amount of oil left in the fertilizer, to the 



12 DOGFISH BILL. 

detriment of the fertilizer and to a reduction of its value on the 
market. 

The operations of the Canadian reduction works have shown that 
for raw material, for dogfish, for fuel, for wear and tear on their 
plants, and allowing no interest on the investement — that for every 
dollar they expend for these items — they are able to recover but 
40 cents. That is an indication and an index of what we would 
have to expect if we undertook the production of fertilizer from 
dogfish. 

The Chairman. That would be a 60 per cent loss. 

Dr. Moore. A 60 per cent loss. That is, in the last six or seven 
years that two of these reduction works have been in continuous 
operation, their gross expenses, making no allowance for interest on 
the original investment, were something like $150,000; and they re- 
covered in the way of proceeds from sales, $56,000. That loss might 
be justified in view of the character of the dog fish and the damage 
that it causes to fisheries if there were any possibility that it could 
be materially reduced in numbers if it could be exterminated, or 
practically exterminated, or if you could bring about any great 
amelioration of the damage they do, by reducing their numbers. 
But that we regard as absolutely out of the question. We believe 
any attempt of that kind to be futile, for the reason that the dog 
fish swims over the entire north Atlantic. It is found on both the 
European and American shores, and it spreads itself over and 
wanders throughout the ocean which lies between them. A school 
which may come on to cur shores to-day may be 100 miles away next 
week, or a thousand miles away, for all we know and it may never 
come back. And the fish you would be able to catch from that schoo] 
would have very little effect on reducing the number which would 
appear next week or next season or in following seasons. I believe, 
however, that the proper way, as the commissioner has expressed it, 
is to transform the fish from a nuisance into an economic resource and 
to make the fishermen desire to catch it because the}^ can make so'me- 
thing out of it. It appears to us that that can be brought about only 
by reason of a high A^alue to the fishermen — the price that the fisher- 
man receives. The highest price which can be brought by fish is for 
food purposes. You might sell these fish for $4 or $8 a ton for 
fertilizer, and you would have to sell them for not more than $4 a 
ton to compete with the Menhaden ; but there is no practical limit to 
the price which they might bring for food. The price depends on 
the light in which they are regarded by the public. If they were 
sold for but a cent a pound that would be $20 a ton for the fish 
instead of $1 or $6 which they might bring for fertilizer purposes. 

We believe that it is perfectly feasible to introduce this fish on 
the market. Other despised fish have found their place. The 
sturgeon was one of them. The sturgeon was formerly thrown away. 
And we believe that the dog fish can be brought into use in the same 
way that it has recently been brought into use on the coasts of Eng- 
land and Wales. Last year, notwithstanding the interruption of 
the fishing operations by reason of the war, there were about 5,000,000 
pounds of dog fish consumed in the English market ; whereas a few 
years ago there were none. The fish is eaten quite extensively by 
all the people that live along the Mediterranean Sea and the Greeks 
and Italians especially consume it in large numbers. The Nor- 



DOGFISH BILL. 13 

v/egians and Swedes also eat it. I had a letter from a Norwegian 
resident in this country just a day or two ago. He had seen some 
account in the newspaper press of the proposed propaganda to intro- 
duce this fish on the market, and he had written to say that he had 
eaten it in Norway and it was a common article of diet there; that 
it was slack-salted over night and boiled the next day, and was re- 
garded much more highly than the cod. He wound up his letter by 
saying that the greatest difficulty we would have to contend with was 
the name of this fish; that its quality was all right but its name 
was bad. 

Mr. Lazaro. Do you know anything about the price of this fish in 
those foreign countries where it is used so extensively? 

Dr. Moore. In the markets of England the fishermen of England 
receive H cents a pound for it. The 5,000,000 pounds which they 
caught last year sold for a little over £16,000 sterling. That is about 
$80,000, which would make the price a little over a cent and a half 
a pound, about 1.6 cents per pound. Of course, all fishes are sold 
cheaper in England than they are here, and probably it would bring 
a higher price here. 

This fish has been eaten here to some extent. When I was in New 
York in October — I had a talk with the master of the fishing vessel 
that we had engaged for carrying on fishing operations for tilefish. 
He is a practical man and one who has had wide experience ; one of the 
leading fishermen of Boston and Gloucester. He was catching dog- 
fish on the tilefish fishing grounds, and he said they were a nuisance, 
and he was driven away from the fishing grounds on account of them. 
I said to him, " Why don't you try to sell them here in New York ? " 
He said he doubted if he could. I told him a good many people in 
New York, Italians, Greeks, and others, who were accustomed to 
eating this fish in their own countries knew what it was, and it ought 
not to be hard to induce them to buy in their adopted city. 

I had a letter from him just last week in which he said he had 
brought in some fish, and he had sold one barrel of 150 pounds, net 
weight, for $8.75, which is pretty nearly 6 cents a pound; and that 
he sold two half barrels of T5 pounds each for $4.75 for each half 
barrel. He said that that had exhausted his supply. In order to 
carry on some experiments in the preparation of the fish there, the 
results of which are shown on that table [indicating], we arranged 
with him to ship some to us at East Gloucester. On his next trip 
he brought in all of the dogfish he could catch, and he sold upward 
of a thousand pounds of them for prices ranging from a cent and a 
half up to 5 cents a pound. Now there is a limited demand, but I 
believe a market can be found in New York at once for a small sup- 
ply. We will have to coax that demand very carefully. We will have 
to bring it along gently so that we will be able to keep the supply 
and demand more or less on an equilibrium. Otherwise if we get a 
glut on the market the dealers will become disgusted and we will 
ruin the whole affair; or, on the other hand, if the quantity brought 
in is too limited and they ask too high a price, we will ruin the de- 
mand. The two will have to be kept properly correlated and the 
matter will have to be dealt with skillfully, and for that reason we are 
asking rather broad authority to proceed in this matter. 

We can not map out this project entirely in advance; it will be a 
campaign of opportunity ; it will be a campaign of development as it 



14 DOGFISH BILL. 

goes along. And therefore we are asking that we be given sufficient 
authority to enable us to meet the conditions as they arise. 

Mr. Byrnes. What is the English name for these dogfish? 

Dr. Moore. The English call it dogfish or houndfish. It is also 
known as ' ; hound." There are various local names in Cornwall and 
Wales, which, however, I do not recall. 

Mr. Byrnes. What do they call it ? What I am anxious to know 
is if you can not find some other name for it. 

Dr. Moore. We can find a name for it, but the difficulty is to find 
a name which will meet the requirements of the Bureau of Chemis- 
try, which administers the pure-food laws. It already has a name, 
which the ordinary man does not hear of. 

Mr. Byrnes. What is the name for brim on our coast? 

Dr. Moore. We probably will endeavor to introduce it under the 
name "Acanthias," which is the specific scientific name of this fish. 

Mr. Byrnes. It is almost as bad as dogfish, is it not ? 

Dr. Moore. It is not ideal, I will admit. 

Mr. Byrnes. What we know as brim down in our country, on the 
south Atlantic coast, in the interior are called " sunfish " ; is not that 
right ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. And as you have two names for all fish, and it seems 
in different localities they have different names, why could you not 
give some other name to this fish to make it more attractive in the 
market ? 

Dr. Moore. The trouble is this accursed fish has the same bad name 
everywhere. You can not get away from the dogfish idea — dog or 
hound or an equivalent — in every place. 

Mr. Greene. Your investigations were with regard to the dogfish, 
were they not? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Greene. And in this investigation you arrived at the point 
where you thought they would be useful for food fish ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Greene. I was wondering — of course, I came in a little late — 
that Boston being the great fish market of the East, why they could 
not be developed there to better advantage than even for the Govern- 
ment to take hold of it. 

Dr. Moore. The dealers of their own initiative would not take 
hold of the tilefish. We had to go to the dealer and educate them to 
take hold of the tilefish. 

Mr. Greene. If you showed them that there was money in it for 
them, I do not think you would have any trouble. 

Dr. Moore. We had to show them actual money ; we had to see 
that they were put in a position where they actually got 6 cents per 
pound ; in effect it was guaranteed to them. It was not an actual 
guaranty, but we took such steps to introduce the sale of this fish 
as to make it a practical guaranty. 

Boston is a great fish market — the greatest fresh fish market in 
the world. It is also the most conservative fish market in the world. 

Mr. Greene. They are all conservative in Boston. 

Dr. Moore. And we have not been able to get the dealers there to 
take up the tilefish; and yet there is a market for it right along. 
New England is being supplied to-day with tilefish from New York. 



DOGFISH BILL. 15 

Now, we will have to go to the dealers with the dogtish; we are 
not going to ignore the dealers; we are going to act in cooperation 
with them, and that is the secret of our method. Without such co- 
operation Ave never would have been able to put the tilefish propa- 
ganda through. We could not undertake to put them on the market 
direct, but we undertook to see that the regular avenues through 
which the}' are usually distributed were not blind avenues or cul-de- 
sacs, but that the} T have an outlet at the end. 

Mr. Burke. Is there any noticeable or substantial difference be- 
tween the flesh of the fresh-water dogfish and the salt-water dog- 
fish? 

Dr. Moore. I am not personally familiar with the flesh of the 
fresh-water dogfish. I know the salt-water dogfish quite well. 

Mr. Burke. You are aware that in our northwestern streams, and 
I presume in other parts of the country and in some of our lakes, 
that there is a fish called the dogfish? 

Dr. Moore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burke. Do you know of any country in which the dogfish is 
used as an article of human food ? 

Dr. Moore. You mean the fresh-water dogfish or the salt-water 
dogfish ? 

Mr. Burke. The fresh-water dogfish? 

Dr. Moore. No, sir. 

Mr. Burke. If you will pardon me, Mr. Commissioner, I would 
like to make this statement, that in my home town, Beaver Dam, we 
have an artificial lake there of 14 miles long by about 3 wide. We 
have about 100 Hungarian families there. They are really Ger- 
mans in the same sense that a person born of German parentage in 
this country is an American. Their parents drifted from Germany 
over into Hungary. And in that lake there are numerous dogfish. 
These Hungarians eat those dogfish in the same manner and with 
the same relish as we eat our ordinary fish, and they say there is not 
any difference in them, and they simply laugh at the balance of us 
because we do not eat the dogfish. 

Dr. Moore. They learned that after they came to this country, 
however. The dogfish is not found in their country. That fresh- 
water dogfish is an American fish, and they learned to eat them after 
they came to this country, which indicates in a way the possibility 
of educating especially our foreign populations, which are more open 
to education in this respect than are Americans — more willing to 
take up a new food than are the Americans — and your story illus- 
trates the possibility on which we are counting — of inducing people 
to take up something new. 

As far as salt-water dogfish is concerned, I was saying before you 
came in, that it is quite extensively used in Europe. It is used along 
the Mediterranean, and to some extent in France, especially in the 
Mediterranean ports of France. It recently has come into use in 
England and Wales; that is, within the last six or eight years; and 
an average of 6,000,000 pounds a year are consumed there now. And 
it has been used for a great many years in Norway and Sweden, 
Now, we have in our country an immense Italian population. I do not 
know how big it is but I suppose the Italian population of New York 
is at least a third as large as the population of Naples, the biggest city 
in Italy. We have a great Italian population scattered all along 



16 DOGFISH BILL. 

our coast, and there is in the Northwest a very large Scandinavian 
population. Now, we have, ready made in a way, a population which 
will be ready to accept this dogfish because they knew something 
about it in their own country. 

Mr. Loud. There is no similarity between the dogfish of the fresh 
water and the catfish, is there? 

Dr. Moore. None whatever. The dogfish of the fresh water be- 
longs to a very peculiar type of fish. It is more nearly related to 
the gar fish. 

Mr. Loud. And to the long, cylindrical, bluefish ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes'; it is a long, cylindrical fish. 

Mr. Loud. And the catfish is more stocky ? 

Dr. Moore. Yes; and the catfish is more nearly related to the rest 
of our fish. The dogfish is more nearly related to the gar. 

Mr. Burke. As illustrated in the course of your remarks about 
finding a population that might patronize this class of fish, I desire 
to say that in the same lake I am speaking of, we have what is 
called the carp, and our native population will not use it at all. 
But in the fall of the year, in fishing with nets on the fishing grounds 
they catch as high as 30 tons in a net, and they have devised a method 
now by which they can ship them alive to Chicago and New York, 
and there are a certain class of people there, I believe, of Jewish 
extraction, who in certain seasons eat these fish, and pay as high as 8, 9, 
and 10 cents a pound for them alive; whereas the people in our sec- 
tion of the country won't touch them at all. 

Dr. Moore. That is the case. They sometimes pay as high as 30 
cents a pound for this fish in New York; and at certain seasons it is 
one of the highest-priced fish in New York; and yet it is despised 
in many parts of our country. It is selling in Washington for 15 
cents. 

The Chairman. The carp? 

Dr. Moore. The carp. 

Mr. Burke. I rather believe ours is the buffalo dog. It grows to 
be a fish with a large scale. 

Dr. Moore. That is probably the carp. The buffalo is really a 
better fish than the carp, I think. It may be the buffalo. 

Mr. Burke. I have heard it disputed as to whether it was the carp 
or the buffalo. 

Dr. Moore. The carp gets to be a huge fish, you know. 

Mr. Burke. Yes ; and sometimes these fish will lay up on the shore 
and they look like young hogs. 

Dr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Curry. This dogfish destroys a lot of the better class of fish, 
does it not? 

Dr. Moore. It destroys fish, but the chief damage which it wrecks 
is to the fisheries themselves. It is not so much the fish it destroys 
as it is the fact that it makes fishing absolutely impossible. When 
the dogfish comes on a foray on the coast the fishermen have to give 
up business. Their trawl lines, which are long lines with hooks at- 
tached at intervals, stretched over the bottom, become gorged with 
dogfish, every hook is taken by a dogfish; and the fish for which the 
fishermen have a market are either driven away or the bait taken 
before they get to it. 



DOGFISH BILL. 17 

In the case of the nets, the fish are eaten right from the nets, and 
as the dogfish has very sharp teeth and a strong mouth, they tear 
the nets to pieces. And the only thing for the fishermen to do is to 
quit in order to save their gear and time. 

Mr. Curry. One of the great outrages in this country is the retail 
price of fish. The fisherman gets from 1 to 3 cents a pound for his 
fish, and when we go down to buy it we have to pay from 15 to 30 
cents a pound. If you could do something so as to let the people 
get fish at the price at which it ought to sell, you would do a whole 
lot of good. 

Dr. Moore. We had a case of this kind with this tilefish. It 
happened right in Boston. There were two catches brought in which 
sold for from 3f to 4 cents a pound, the dealers there being very 
reluctant to handle them. The day after the fishermen got that low 
price, they were selling at the retail shops in the town for 22 cents 
a pound. They had appreciated in value 18 cents in one day. 

The Chairman. I got a letter the other day from some gentle- 
man in New York who has been interested in the welfare of the 
fishermen on the coast for years past, who called attention to that 
fact, that the fishermen get a very small part of the cost of the fish 
to the consumer, and that the trade is monopolized in a way that he 
is robbed of the profit of his catch. And this gentleman insisted that 
the Government ought to purchase and operate a number of fishing 
schooners or other craft along the New England coast to take the 
catch of a fisherman and bring it to market and give him a chance 
to get a reasonable price for his catch. 

Dr. Moore. That would not, however, solve the problem in this 
case, because the question of transportation was not involved at all. 
The fishermen brought their fish right into the fish wharf and sold 
them there for between 3 and 4 cents a pound, and they were resold 
right in the same city, the only transportation involved being the 
trucks to carry the fish from the wharf to the retailer. 

Mr. Greene. We will have to have an investigation of the fish 
trade. 

Mr. Curry. Are the fishermen in New York permitted to sell to 
the consumer? 

Dr. Moore. I do not know of any regulation against it. As a 
matter of fact, I do not believe there are many of them who do. 

Mr. Curry. It would not be any law. I am just talking about 
whether they are permitted to do that by the dealers. 

Dr. Moore. I suppose if the fishermen anywhere would attempt 
to sell directly to the consumer, they would come into conflict more 
or less with the dealer, and the dealer would be quite likely to 
remember that fact when the fisherman wanted to dispose of some 
fish to him in a pinch. 

Mr. Curry. We had a condition of that kind out in California. 
We reached it through State legislation. The fishermen was receiv- 
ing from 1 to 3 or 4 cents a pound for their fish, and he was only 
permitted to sell what the retailers wanted to buy. There was a 
monopoly out there and a man in Pasadena had control of the market. 
The State legislature appointed a commission to investigate the sit- 
uation and to find out what it was (and they have since passed legis- 
lation) and now, if a person wishes, he can go down to the wharf 

29347—16 2 



18 DOGFISH BILL. 

and buy fish from the fisherman and take them home. But before 
that legislation, if the fisherman sold to the consumer the retailer 
would not buy from him, and that put him out of business. Before 
that, down in my town, Sacramento, we used to pay 3 cents a pound 
for the same fish at the wharf, and we could go right uptown, four 
blocks, to the fish market, and we had to pay 22 cents a pound. But 
they have changed that out there. Of course they have got to pay 
10 or 12 cents a pound now, if they go to the fish market, but if they 
go down to the wharf and buy the fish, they can get it for 5 cents a 
pound from the fisherman. 

Dr. Moore. There are a great many fish sold direct by the fisher- 
men in Boston. There has recently developed there a very large shoe 
men in Boston. There has recently developed there a very large 
shore fishery, carried on mainly by the Italians, in which they take 
a large quantity of the flat fishes, the flounders and fish of that gen- 
eral type, and they are sold, direct to the consumer at the fish wharf, 
and they are bringing them to the consumer in push carts, etc. 

Mr. Greene. I have never seen anjHbody interfere with the selling 
of fish at the wharf in my town. 

Mr. Curry. Before this law went to effect they used to take their 
surplus fish, what they could not sell to the retailer in the market, or 
if they had an extra large catch fish, and take it offshore and dump 
it in the water. 

Dr. Moore. That is done in New York every now and then. 

Mr. Curry. They do not do it out home any more. I would like 
to see these fish put on the market, and I would like to see you folks 
whose business it is to think these matters out, think out some way 
whereby, without the Government going into the business itself, the 
people will be able to buy fish at reasonable prices. It ought to be 
the cheapest flesh food the people have; but really, in some places, 
it is as dear as meat. 

STATEMENT OF MR. N. P. M. JACOBS, OF MAINE. 

Mr. Jacobs. I come from a dogfish coast, and I know in a small 
way that I can speak about the menace it is to the public there. The 
dogfish come onto our coast about the 1st of May and remain there 
throughout the season, up to the 1st of November. During that time 
the fishermen can make very little money. The dogfish, as you 
know, drives everything in front of him. Everything has to go 
when the dogfish comes. I have seen the dogfish drive the edible 
fish up onto the beach in front of my house and all along the coast 
so that we have had to go out and take our teams and get men to bury 
those fish on the land, there were so many driven in by the dogs. 

The fishermen, of course, get no price for the dogfish at all, and 
they can not catch the edible fish. Consequently they look to other 
pursuits; And I might say that the fishermen in our section are be- 
coming less and less every year, and, I think, for that reason; and 
the dogfish are multiplying very fast. 

I have never heard the question discussed much in regard to the 
dogfish as an edible fish until I have heard it here. I do not think 
that they can be used among our people for a long time as an 
edible fish. I am quite sure of that, because the name " dogfish " 
would certainly kill them, even if they were a good edible fish. And 
I think that would be so all over the country. It seems to me that 



DOGFISH BILL. 19 

if they were a good fish in that way, of course, the fishermen them- 
selves could make a living, and they would catch all dogfish if the 
price was more than for the other fish. 

The Chairman. During this season when you say they infest the 
coast there, they would catch the dogfish if they had a market for 
them. Do you think it is practicable to catch them and convert them 
into fertilizer? 

Mr. Jacobs. I wish they could be exterminated in some way. I 
do not believe that they can catch them fast enough. 

The Chairman. How long have these fertilizer plants been estab- 
lished in Canada ; do you know ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No; I do not. 

The Chairman. Has there been any appreciable diminution of the 
number of dogfish since these plants were in operation? 

Mr. Jacobs. Not in our section. I think they are multiplying 
very fast. 

Mr. Hinds. Mr. Maddocks is prepared on that branch of the 
subject. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LUTHER MADDOCKS, MEMBER OF THE SPE- 
CIAL COMMISSION OF MAINE TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT 
ON THE DOGFISH. 

Mr. Maddocks. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
I have no doubt your patience is pretty well exhausted, and I will 
detain you but a few moments. I wish to call your attention to this 
bill which you have before you and to speak of its merits. I ap- 
prove of it. I approve of all that was said by the Secretary of Com- 
merce before the Senate committee on Saturday, a copy of whose 
remarks you have before you. 

What I want to impress upon this committee is the necessity of 
some action on the part of the Government to reduce the number of 
dogfish in the sea and to make it of some value to the human 
family. This is a burning question on the New England coast and 
on the whole Atlantic coast. It is a question on which the Legisla- 
ture of Maine has acted and the Legislature of Massachusetts now 
has under consideration a similar bill. I have been appointed by the 
governor of the State of Maine as one of a commission to investi- 
gate this whole subject and report to our next legislature this coming 
year. 

My investigations lead me to believe that any attempt, no matter 
how feeble, to help the fishermen in this matter is acceptable. If 
we can not get what we want, I believe we should get what we can. 
I believe it is commendable on the part of the Bureau of Fisheries 
to suggest that this fish can be made an article of food. I am will- 
ing to help, and our fishermen are willing to help demonstrate it. 
Conditions are desperate on the coast among the fishermen. I know 
that because I live among them; on my right and on my left are 
fishermen; and I know the pinched condition of those families to- 
day. They are suffering from poverty, and they are suffering un- 
told poverty in some cases, for the reason that the dogfish were so 
plentiful on the coast last year that is was impossible to catch food 
fish to help through the winter. They appear, as has been stated, 



20 DOGFISH BILL. 

about the 1st of May and stay until November, and while they are 
there it is almost impossible for the fishermen to depend on fishing 
by troll, hook, and net fishing to get a living out of the water. 

The State has considered this matter and, as I said, appointed a 
commission, which I represent, and authority was given to us to 
apply to the Government of the United States for relief. And I 
am here to-day to voice the opinion and the desire of the fishermen, 
and any bill or any effort made in the direction of their relief will 
be received and appreciated. 

The different methods have been suggested to you for handling 
this question. I do not care to go into them and rehearse that matter, 
although a part of what has been said to you I have different ideas, 
based on a practical experience of a whole lifetime of 71 years; so 
I am not guessing at anything, and I am not telling you anything 
that people have told me. I had occasion to visit the plant at Nova 
Scotia, and I feel quite well informed. I was there last June. I 
went all through their plants, and having had 50 years' experience 
in the fertilizer business in the East (in the Menhaden business), 
I readily caught on to the process, as you might imagine. I am 
satisfied that the principle involved in those factories on the coast 
of Nova Scotia is the correct principle, but that matter has only been 
handled in a feeble way. They have 700 miles of coast line and 
there are only three factories to grapple with this great proposition 
of destroving or reducing the number of these dogfish, the greatest 
menace that ever came upon our coast. Now, I am in correspondence 
with the commissioner who has this matter in charge in Nova Scotia, 
and I am in correspondence with the superintendents of works. T 
also have the figures that have been put up to you to-day, on which 
I do not wish to take issue; but when I tell you that the Canadian 
Government to assist their farmers have sold the fertilizer to them 
at $20 a ton, when it is worth to-day $40 (and have sold their oil 
at much below the market price), for the purpose of pleasing the 
farmers and as an offset to the taxes which they might have paid for 
the benefit of the fishermen, you can understand why their business 
is being run at such a great loss. As far as the manufacture of 
the product is concerned, they have as good an outfit and as good a 
process as is known to-day. They have the American process ma- 
chinery, which is up to date and which is sent all over the world 
for handling garbage. The process would have been explained 
to-dav had we thought it necessary; and I want to say right here 
that I have the names of 50 men on my list who would have been 
here had we considered it necessary, but under the present conditions 
we supposed if we came before this committee and gave you the 
facts about this menace, this bill would meet with very little oppo- 
sition. I think that is the fact; I think we all coincide with the idea 
that this is a step in the right direction, and if carried out will 
affect every man, woman, and child in this country. The people 
who catch fish will be benefited; the people who buy fish will be 
benefited, and the people who eat fish will be benefited, because it 
will conserve the natural food fish which inhabit our ocean to-dav. 
And if we can make a food of this article (dogfish) and send it into 
the interior, where they do not know about the name, the prejudice 
and all that sort of thing, that will be a benefit. 



DOGFISH BILL. 21 

I have been in the canning business for 40 years, and I have canned 
dogfish. I have sent it out all over this country and offered it for 
sale and have given away a good deal, but I have received very little 
encouragement, not enough to warrant me in going into the business. 

1 have carried on the dogfish business from a fertilizer standpoint for 
four years. I bought during that time 4,500,000 dogfish and I paid 

2 cents apiece. That is about the price for which the fishermen can 
afford to catch them. I had these fish eviscerrated on my wharf at 
my factories and I had an opportunity to see what their stomachs 
contained. I had to do that in order to take out the livers which are 
very heavily charged with oil. You can not cook the dogfish and 
the livers together and make good fertilizer, because it contains too 
much oil, and the heat used in reducing the fish for fertilizer is not 
the heat required to convert the liver into oil. I went a long ways 
along that line, and I want to say there is not money enough in the 
business, there was not and there is not, to make it an object for 
private investors or corporations to embark in the business. There 
is about a 10 per cent deficit, and I know that by experience, because 
I kept on with the business until I was about $10,000 in the hole and 
then I abandoned it. But I have studied this question ever since, and 
I came to the conclusion several years ago that it was not commer- 
cially a paying proposition so that private individuals or corporations 
can do anything with it, and the only thing to do was to come to the 
Government just as we went to our State and to have it considered 
here. And, as I said before, they have authorized our commission to 
come here and ask you gentlemen to consider it. 

It is only a question of time when, if something is not done for the 
fishermen on the Atlantic coast, they will not have any fishermen up 
there. That is all there is to it. They have decreased, to my remem- 
brance, 60 per cent. Adverse circumstances and lack of encourage- 
ment on the- part of our Government has had something to do with it. 
Canada has protected her fishermen by paying bounties and subsidies, 
and in many other ways in which our fishermen have not been pro- 
tected. We did have an act, which was repealed in the sixties, offer- 
ing a bounty. That was in 1844 or 1845, I think; somewhere along 
there, when we were far behind with the American fisheries on the 
Atlantic coast; and that bounty stimulated and encouraged them, 
and they raised up a hardy, husky set of men; and when we have 
wanted those men and have needed those men in our past conflicts 
they have always been ready at any time. And Washington could 
not have crossed the Delaware had it not been for the fishermen of 
Massachusetts, and to them and them alone belongs the praise. But 
that is a matter of history, and I won't dwell on that. 

Now, gentlemen, we are talking about ships. Excuse me if I 
digress a little. We are talking about ships before this same com- 
mittee — building ships. What is the use of building ships if they 
have to lay alongside of the wharf without men? What is the use 
of building ships and manning them with landlubbers? What is a 
landlubber worth up here on the coast in a gale of wind, who has 
not gotten his sea legs on, and who gets seasick? And, gentlemen, 
you can not find American sailors and fishermen enough to-day to man 
the ships which you have — not over 40 per cent. I believe those are 



22 DOGFISH BILL. 

the figures. And I want you gentlemen to understand that the great 
nursery of the American Navy to-day is the fishing business, and the 
fishermen should be encouraged and they should be protected. 

I will not take any more of your time. If there are any questions 
that you want to ask, I will be glad to answer them. 

Mr. Hadley. I would like to know along what line the State com- 
mission is working, whether on the bounty basis or the economic basis 
such as is suggested here ? 

Mr. Maddocks. The State has no definite plan. They have ap- 
pointed us as a commission to investigate and report a plan, and 
we are trying to do so. We have found that there are many men of 
many minds on this subject, the same as in anything else. Some of 
them want to make it a food fish. To make it a food fish is all right 
so far as it goes, but you can eat all you want and eat them as fast as 
you can, and it would not reduce the number of dogfish in the sea. 
There is no man who would say that it would. Dr. Smith won't 
say that. But if you catch 100,000,000 and make them into fertilizer 
each year, you might in time reduce the number or offset their in- 
crease. 

The Chairman. You were appointed by the State, I believe, to 
investigate this question and make recommendations. Are you in- 
clined to recommend that the State erect fertilizer factories and 
utilize the dogfish for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Maddocks. I have not discussed it with my associates. 
Neither one of them is here ; they were unable to come on account of 
sickness. But I am inclined to think that we would hail with delight 
the effects of this bill, as a starting point, as a wedge by which we 
might open a market and help, so far as it goes. For every dogfish 
you take out of the sea just so many food fish are preserved that that 
dogfish would have destroyed; and if you can find a market so that 
the fishermen can get some money out of it it helps the fishermen to 
that extent. But I shall always say, because that is well known and 
is nothing new, that the great way, the most expeditious way, to 
annihilate the dogfish is to make them into fertilizer and oil. The 
land of this country is hungry for fertilizer. Ammoniates have gone 
up 30 or 40 per cent in two years and the Menhaden production has 
gone down 40 or 50 per cent in that time, so that an overstock of 
ammoniates in this country does not exist. The oil is used for vari- 
ous purposes and there is a good demand. 

I want to look at this thing fairly. I appreciate the position that 
the Bureau of Fisheries has taken, and I indorse every word that 
they have said, and especially what Mr. Eedfield has said, at the hear- 
ing on Saturday before the Senate committee. It is all very nice 
and strong doctrine. But I do say, gentlemen, that the immensity 
of the damage, the enormous amount of food fish that are destroyed 
by the dogfish, and the great necessity that exists to-day to do some- 
thing to help the fishermen of our country must be apparent to you. 

Mr. Curry. You said that in your experience in the dogfish fer- 
tilizer and oil industry you had examined the stomachs of dogfish 
and knew what their food was; but you did not say what it was. 
What fish do they live on? 

Mr. Maddocks. That skipped my mind. It gave me a pretty good 
opportunity to see what they live on. I found young lobsters; I 



DOGFISH BILL. 23 

found young fish of all kinds ; all kinds of fry ; also mackerel, men- 
haden, and herring. I do not think the dogfish is such a tremendous 
eater, but they will bite and spit out. They will get into a school of 
mackerel, and in five minutes they will scatter it here and there and 
drive them off from the fishing grounds and do a terrible amount of 
damage in a very short time. And if you catch a school of mackerel 
in a seine these dogfish will come up behind the net and in fifteen 
minutes ruin it — a net costing $1,000. I have known that to be so, 
and I had a gentleman here last week that would testify to that. 

Mr. Curry. Do they eat the mackerel fry ? 

Mr. Maddocks. We do not have many mackerel fry on this coast. 
We have the small mackerel which we call the tinker, and they eat 
them. Of course, they eat the small fish fry of all kinds. We have 
discovered almost everything in their stomachs that you can imagine 
in the shape of fish. There was a lobster taken out of one of their 
stomachs last year which was 7 inches long. 

Mr. Burke. How large do these dogfish grow ? 

Mr. Maddocks. About 3 feet ; from 2| to 3 feet. 

FURTHER STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER 
OF FISHERIES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Dr. Smith. I would like to have put into the record for the infor- 
mation of the committee, if it so desires, some official figures show- 
ing the result of the operations of these Canadian dogfish plants, of 
which a great deal has been said. These plants have been in opera- 
tion since 1910, and I have the detailed figures from 1910 to 1915, 
inclusive. These have been supplied by the officials of the Canadian 
Government. I will call attention to the fact that in the first year, 
in the operation of one of these two plants, the expenses of operation 
were $19,876, and the total sales of dogfish fertilizer and oil were 
$7,197. 

Dr. Moore. Mr. Commissioner, just get into the record there the 
prices on which that was based. 

Dr. Smith. Those figures were based on an average fertilizer price 
of $30 per ton, and an oil price of 30 cents per gallon. 

In the last year of the operation of those two plants one of them 
expended $17,338 for labor, supplies, raw material, fuel, etc.; and 
the value of the products sold was $4,851. 

In the case of the other plant, the expenditure was $10,719 and 
the products sold for $3,900. 

During those five years these two plants consumed 7,200 tons of 
dogfish, and as to the effect of those operations on the supply, I quote 
from the letter of an official of the Canadian fisheries department : 

As to the effects of the operations of these plants in diminishing the ravages 
of the dogfish, I regret to say that the department is unable to find evidence 
that they have resulted in any appreciable diminution of the dogfish. It is 
true that in some years the run of these fish is smaller than in others, but this,, 
of course, can not be attributed to the operations at the reduction plants. 



24 



DOGFISH BILL. 



Statement slioiving operations of Canadian Government dogfish reduction works, 

1910-1915. 



Year. 


Labor. 


Supplies. 


Ex- 
penses. 


Raw ma- 
terial. 


Fuel. 


Total. 


^ 


"Collecting 
steamer. 


Grand 
total. 


Canso, Nova Scotia: 
1910-11 1 


$6,715.85 
6,232.28 
2, 696. 91 
5, 233. 15 
5,168.42 

5,319.64 
3, 554. 21 
2,818.00 
3, 752. 19 
3, 602. 50 


$373.05 

2,243.28 

640.80 

982. 36 

1, 587. 53 

1. 192. 78 

1,418.83 

323. 57 

414.81 

562. 31 


$1,058.23 

3,333.60 

750. 55 

45.18 

401.46 

2,574.03 
940. 33 
298. 14 
443. 84 
847. 92 


$5, 378. 90 
1,273.61 
5,357.90 
6, 327. 73 
3, 043. 27 

8,551.92 
4,408.76 
1,430.51 
3, 630. 52 
2, 938. 16 


$1,265.90 

976. 56 

919. 90 

1,419.77 

994. 25 

1,474.56 

1,322.05 

1,056.96 

480.00 

908. 33 


514,791.9 


$5, 084. 65 
4, 646. 89 
3, 185. 23 
5,441.32 
6, 143. 17 

1, 164. 15 
772. 92 
1, 577. 50 
2,400.00 
1, 860. 00 


$19, 876. 58 
18,706.22 
13,551.29 


1911-12 

1912-13 


14,859.23 
10,366.06 
14,008.19 
11,194.93 

19,112.93 
11,644.18 
5, 927. 18 
8.721.36 
8, 859. 22 


1913-14 


19,449.51 


1914-15 


17, 338. 10 


Claris Harbor, Nova 
Scotia: 
1910-11 


20,277.08 
12, 367. 10 
7, 504. 68 


1911-12 


1912-13 


1913-14 


11,121.36 


1914-15 


10,719.22 






Year. 


Dog F sh 

pvr- 
chased. 


Offal. 


Scrap 
pro- 
duced. 


Oil pro- 
duced. 


Approx- 
imate 
valv e of 
products. 8 


Canso, No^a Scotia: 

1910-111 


Tens. 
1,220 

307£ 
1,048* 
1,266" 

743J 

1,453 
726 
314 
720J 

625} 


Tons. 


Tons. 
143i 

30 
123i 
151f 

91 

185 
120 
48 
98 
81| 


Gallons. 
9,642 
2,205 
13,440 
15,272 
7,072 

11,000 
6,000 
2,604 
3,480 
4.868 


$7, 197. 60 


1911-12 




1, 561. 50 


1912-13 




7,737.00 


1913-14 




9,116.60 


1914-15 




4,851.60 
8,850 00 


Clarl s h arbor, Nova Scotia: 

1910-11 


421 
220 
52 
103J 
124J 


1911-12 


5,400.00 


1912-13 


2,221.20 


1913-14 


4,084.00 


1914-15 


3.900.40 













Apr. 1 to Mar. 31. 



2 Scrap, $30 per ton; oil, 30 cents per gallon. 



STATEMENT OF MR. J. C. HARMON", OF ST0NINGT0N, ME. 

Mr. Harmon. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 
in the wholesale lumber business. I am a native of the coast of 
Maine, and have been all of my life. For about 25 years, I was a 
native of Southwest Harbor and Penobscot, Me., where there are 
large fishing interests ; and for the last 20 years I have been a native 
of Stonington, Me., where there is quite a large fishing interest. 

I just happened to drop in here for a moment, as I feel greatly in- 
terested in this bill. I am sent here to Washington by the State of 
Maine to confer with the Government to see what can be done for the 
preservation of the lobster fisheries, and I believe if this bill passes 
it will do as much good as anything else I know of. I understand a 
large part of the food of the dogfish is lobsters which, of course, is a 
great detriment to the lobster interests on the whole coast of New 
England. 

I have come in contact with a great many fishermen all of my life, 
and they all sav that the degfish menace is the worst enemy to the 
fishermen. In the summer time the fishermen will be fishing along, 
ana ao ng fireiv. until the dogfish strike the coast, when they will be 
obliged to take up their fishing trolls and nets and abandon the busi- 
ness for some time. And the dogfish ruins their trolls and ruins 
their nets, and practically puts the fishermen out of business. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



DOGFISH BILL. 25 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESSS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE. 

Mr. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I represent more dogfish 
than any man in Congress. My district extends from the Penobscot 
River to Eastport, which is a large stretch of the coast of Maine, 
about half; and you gentlemen who do not live on the coast have no 
appreciation of the dangers to the fisheries that this situation con- 
cerning the dogfish is. These gentlemen, Mr. Harmon and others, 
who are practical men in the business, have described to you the 
operations of the dogfish, which is practically a shark. When these 
dogfish come in on our coast in May the fisherman have to cease their 
operations. The business of fishing has to stop ; and you gentlemen, 
of course, can imagine what that means to the people of the coast of 
New England. 

The people of the State of Maine have thought that possibly by 
the utilization of dogfish as fertilizer some progress might be made 
in the elimination of this menace; but the Bureau of Fisheries has 
thought it wiser to approach the matter from another angle and to 
endeavor to utilize the fish as a food product, which would thus auto- 
matically take care of the danger ; because if they become a valuable 
product, no intervention on the part of the Government would be 
necessary, and the ordinary industrial activities of its citizens would 
be sufficient to greatly remove the menace and convert it into a valu- 
able industry. The people of Maine are very glad to cooperate in 
an effort to ascertain the value of that idea. And it is evident that 
if the dogfish can be made available as a product that a great benefit 
will accrue, both to the fisherman and to the population at large. 

I understand from older people that the halibut (now esteemed to 
be one of the best food fishes) was not considered fit for food some 
years ago. Do you know anything about that, Mr. Greene ? 

Mr. Greene. No; I can not say as to that. I have eaten it ever 
since I can recollect. 

Mr. Peters. Senator Johnson told me the other day that he can 
recollect when the people in Maine would not eat halibut; would 
only eat part of the fins. But now halibut is one of the most valuable 
fish. And I myself know that at one time the people of the coast of 
New England would not eat haddock, and the carp was the only fish 
of that kind they would eat. They would not eat haddock. 

Mr. Hinds. That Avas so in the city of Portland; that is, the old 
fish dealers have told me it was so. 

Mr. Peters. And now haddock, the product of our fisheries, is one 
of the most valuable fishes. And Dr. Smith has told you, in regard 
to this new tilefish, that only one month's stimulation by the Govern- 
ment was sufficient to establish that as a continuous and profitable 
business. The sturgeon the same way. And it is evidently possible, 
and I defer to Dr. Smith's opinion on that point, that this menace to 
the fishing business can also be converted into food fish. Anyhow, 
the possibility is sufficient to warrant us making the attempt on be- 
half of the people of the country. 

Mr. Hinds. I would like to suggest that is true of the swordfish 
also. 

Mr. Peiers. Yes. Mr. Hinds suggests that is true of the sword- 
fish, that until recently it was not regarded as an edible fish ; but now, 



26 DOGFISH BILL. 

in my own town in Maine, every day I see in the windows of the fish 
market swordfish advertised and much sought after by the citizens. 

So, for these reasons and a great many others, unnecessary now 
on account of the lack of time to detail, it is regarded by us as a very 
important thing that this bill pass in order to begin, if possible, the 
establishment of this business. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. GUERNSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE. 

Mr. Guernsey. While the district I represent in Maine is not a 
coast district, yet formerly I did represent a portion of the coast of 
Maine. I know, however, that there is a very widespread interest 
in our country in favor of something being done in connection with 
the dogfish menace. The idea of the Maine people has been that they 
might be destroyed by utilizing them for phosphates ; but in view of 
the statement of the Bureau of Fisheries that the destruction and ex- 
hustion of dogfish by any method is practically impossible and that 
it is better to undertake to utilize them for food, I think the people 
of our State will accept that view and would favor at least the trial 
of the legislation proposed here in the bill before you. 

It has been called to my attention that dogfish, in the marketing of 
them, would not be attempted by scattering them broadcast as fresh 
fish ; but it would be done, perhaps more through canning, as shown 
here. In that even, of course, only the best portions of the fish would 
be utilized. And yet it would be utilized in a very effectual way, for 
the profit of our people along the coast and to the advantage of the 
country as a whole. 

Mr. Hinds. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Plummer is here, and I would like 
him to say a word. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD C. PLUMMER, OF BATH, ME. 

Mr. Plummer. Mr. Chairman, it is only necessary for me to say 
that my life has been spent among the fishermen and I am interested 
in what has been said. 

I might say that the dogfish, I suppose, destroys more young lob- 
sters than any other fish in the sea. When they used to be operating 
down at Boothbay Harbor, that Mr. Maddocks has referred to, it 
was a common thing to find lobsters up to 6 and 7 inches in length in 
the stomachs of these dogfish. 

Of course, the whole country will be benefited by a new food prod- 
uct, and it is not necessary for me to say anything more. 

Mr. Burke. Is there anything further, Mr. Hinds? 

Mr. Hinds. No ; but I would like the privilege of having inserted 
in the record the remarks of the Secretary of Commerce. There was 
no stenographer at the Senate hearing, but I think perhaps we have 
a report that is all right if we send it to the Secretary and ask him 
to revise it. It is a report from a newspaper woman, but it is ap- 
parently accurate, and I think that the Secretary would indorse it. 

Mr. Burke. Your idea or suggestion, Mr. Hinds, is that you desire 
this newspaper woman's statement of Secretary Kedfield's testimony 



DOGFISH BILL. 27 

before the Senate committee should be sent to him for the purpose 
of having him revise it, as he sees fit, and inserted in the record? 

Mr. Hinds. Yes. 

Mr. Burke. That will be considered as the sense of the committee. 

Mr. Greene. I will state this, that I introduced the first dogfish 
bill in the House a number of years ago, for the purpose of trying 
to exterminate the dogfish. There was a gentleman living in the 
State who, knowing that I represented this Cape Cod district, and 
that I would be very much interested in the destruction of the dog- 
fish, took the matter up with me. And I think there are some other 
matters of detail in the files of past Congresses relative to the dog- 
fish, that would be of interest. Afterwards Mr. Terrell, who repre- 
sented the district in which this gentleman lived, introduced a dog- 
fish bill and filed some information in regard to that with the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Burke. Do you remember when it was that you introduced 
your dogfish bill and when this other bill was introduced? 

Mr. Greene. Oh, it must have been a dozen years ago; 12 years 
ago, sure. Mr. Terrell's bill must, I think, have been introduced 
some eight or nine years ago. He is now dead. 

Mr. Burke. Do you know if that information was printed at the 
time? 

Mr. Greene. I think it was. We have had a dogfish hearing before 
this committee. I think those will be among the files. That was the 
beginning of an attempt to have legislation to provide for the destruc- 
tion of the dogfish on something after the line that has been talked 
of here, that they are carrying on this work in Canada, 

From the information I have been able to gather, since the dogfish 
have accumulated so fast and have been so prolific and are so much 
more dangerous than they were then, I really think something ought 
to be done. 

Mr. Burke. I think it is impossible to exterminate them, just as 
much as it is impossible to count the sands of the sea ; but that does 
not seem to be the object of this bill. The object of this bill seems 
to be to have something done for the purpose of introducing them to 
the trade as an edible fish. 

Mr. Greene. I suppose people would learn how to catch them; 
but I should be afraid to catch them; I would feel more like they 
would catch me. 

Mr. Burke. That will be a benefit to the public, if it can be done. 

Mr. Hinds. The first bill I introduced was a fertilizer bill, but 
when I talked with the Commissioner of Fisheries I decided that I 
would put in another bill that would be more in accordance with 
scientific methods. 

(Thereupon, at 12.15 o' clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
Wednesday, February 23, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



! 






: '■ '■■ 



.iiilililillijii 



pill 



Gaylord Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse, N. Y. 

PAT. JAN. 21, 1908 



!! . 



;!| 

I 






